USA Dot Com is a blog covering politics and government from a conservative Christian perspective. Verne Strickland is a 50-year veteran of investigative journalism. This blog offers a take-no-prisoners style with a modicum of biting satire. Verne and his wife of 55 years, Durrene, live in Wilmington, NC.

It’s not clear which government contractors helped with this project,
but it’s likely that a back room handshake was all that was needed to
keep the project alive. As long as our dollars are filling these
companies’ pockets, Obama can keep increasing his power.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 28, 2013

NewsMax Saturday, 28 September 2013

NSA the federal domestic spy agency, since 2010 has used data it gathered to map some Americans' "social
connections that can identify their associates, their locations at
certain times, their traveling companions and other personal
information."

The New York Times reported on Saturday that the National
Security Agency, the main U.S. government surveillance organization, had
since 2010 used data it gathered to map some Americans' "social
connections that can identify their associates, their locations at
certain times, their traveling companions and other personal
information."

In the latest revelation of the activities of the NSA, which have
prompted concern about previously unknown intrusion into Americans'
privacy in the name of protecting against terrorist and other foreign
attacks, the newspaper quoted documents provided by Edward Snowden, the
former NSA contractor who fled to Russia earlier this year.
It said the documents showed that "the spy agency began allowing the
analysis of phone call and email logs in November 2010 to examine
Americans' networks of associations for foreign intelligence purposes
after NSA officials lifted restrictions on the practice."
The policy shift was intended to help the agency "discover and track"
connections between intelligence targets overseas and people in the
United States, according to an NSA memorandum from January 2011, the
Times said.
It said the NSA was authorized to conduct "large-scale graph analysis
on very large sets of communications metadata without having to check
foreignness" of every email address, phone number or other identifier,
the document said. Because of concerns about infringing on the privacy
of American citizens, the computer analysis of such data had previously
been permitted only for foreigners.
The agency could augment the communications data with material from
public, commercial and other sources, including bank codes, insurance
information, Facebook profiles, passenger manifests, voter registration
rolls and GPS location information, as well as property records and
unspecified tax data, according to the documents, the paper said.
It said NSA officials declined to say how many Americans had been
affected and said the documents did not describe the result of the
scrutiny, which it said "links phone numbers and emails in a 'contact
chain' tied directly or indirectly to a person or organization overseas
that is of foreign intelligence interest."

Also see: Rouzer says shutdown 'would be good for America.'

Verne Strickland USA DOT COM

A veteran Democratic senator on Friday stepped up his party's
criticism of Tea Party-backed efforts to defund ObamaCare, likening the
risk of a government shutdown to the threat faced by the country during
the Civil War.

"We are at one of the most dangerous points in our history right now
-- every bit as dangerous as the break-up of the Union before the Civil
War," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who helped write the Affordable Care
Act as chairman of the Senate committee overseeing the health care
industry.

Harkin's comments are just the latest salvo in a heated rhetorical
battle between backers of a push by Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Mike
Lee, R-Utah, to block consideration of a House-passed budget bill and
veteran lawmakers who decry their efforts as political theater that
brings the country closer to a possible shutdown next week. Harkin and
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have repeatedly referred to Tea Party
lawmakers as "anarchists."

"We're not going to bow to Tea Party anarchists who deny the mere
fact that ObamaCare is the law," Reid declared in floor remarks earlier
this week.

Cruz and Lee have also drawn friendly fire from other members of the
GOP, in part because they insist that any Republican senator who joins
the chamber's 54 Democrats (including two independents who caucus with
the party) in voting to advance the budget bill is being disingenuous in
their opposition to the president's health care law.

That's because,
they argue, everyone knows that Reid will be able to strip the defunding
language from the bill by a simple majority as his next step.
In a testy floor exchange Thursday, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., accused
the pair of delaying Senate action because they wanted to put on a
"show."

"The reason we're waiting is that y'all have sent out releases and
emails and you want everybody to be able to watch," Corker said.

Cruz later accused many of his colleagues of being "scared" of a shutdown."A lot of Republicans, they have been here a long time," he said in
an appearance on Fox News' "Hannity" on Thursday. "And they're scared
that if we stand together on this and if a government shutdown results
that Republicans will be blamed and it is too politically risky."

“We are
being hoodwinked by Mr. Obama, who is obviously intent on attacking the
American economy, our freedoms, and our way of life.”David Rouzer

By Verne StricklandSeptember 27, 2013

I wrote the following piece today. I was proud of David Rouzer. Also today, the U.S. Senate turned its back on America by voting to fund Obamacare, among other things.

And I am still proud of David Rouzer. He took the high road. He stuck to his guns. This will pay off for the straight-shooting conservative U.S. Congressional candidate in the long run.

David and I have some important things in common. We both grew up in rural North Carolina -- he in Johnston County, and me in Nash. We are both conservative Christians. We dearly love America. And we both were closely associated with the late great statesman Jesse A. Helms.

Jesse hired me at WRAL-TV in 1966 because I thought and wrote like he did. I left Capitol Broadcasting fifteen years later to join Jesse's successful 1982-84 re-election campaign.

David's closeness to Helms is better known, and far more important. He was by the side of the Senator during some of the most important and hard-fought battles beginning in 1994.

Jesse would be proud today of David Rouzer, and would have every right to be. Why? Because, like Helms, David has lost a number of important fights. And, like Helms, David never despaired, and fought on. Both of these two highly-principled North Carolinians have fought, and lost, for principle -- not glory or gain.

Far for being an embarrassment for Rouzer, this will cause many conservative patriots -- Republican and Democrat alike -- to rally to the side of the quiet, whip-smart and disarming former member of the North Carolina General Assembly.

While Rouzer lost a high-stakes Washington shoot-out, this could well be the key to finally prying Mike McIntyre loose from the District 7 House seat he has held onto for the better of two decades.

Great job, David. As Jesse always used to say: "I never won a public opinion poll -- but I never lost an election. While Rouzer has been on the short end of the stick a few times, he held his ground on the shutdown. Never flinched. If he lost the battle, I expect he will win the war.

**************************************************

U.S. conservative GOP candidate David Rouzer of North
Carolina says Americans need have no fear of a “federal government shutdown”.

He’s been there before, during his first year on the
Washington staff of the late U.S. Senator Jesse A. Helms in 1994. You may not
hear anyone else say this, butDavidRouzer,whose goal is to send
excessively incumbent Democrat Mike McIntyre back to his hometown of Lumberton,
is confident a shutdown would be good
for America and the Republican Party.

In an exclusive interview with the affable 42-year-old, I
asked him to connect the dots on his unexpected contention that a shutdown,
rather than being harmful to America, could actually be beneficial in many
ways:

ROUZER:

“I think it’s important to point out when you have a
temporary government shutdown – and it’s just that, it’s temporary – and the
other thing is, you’re talking about discretionary spending, not mandatory
spending, such as social security checks, Medicare, Medicaid, those programs
that are particularly important to Seniors, as well as other critically
important government operations. A shutdown affects discretionary spending, and
discretionary spending only.When you compare that to the opportunity to completely
uproot and defund Obamacare, which would have lasting and very damaging
consequences for our Republic, to me it’s a non-issue. Let’s stand up and do
what’s right.”

VS:

You have advised that a similar taste of partisan gridlock
was present about twenty years ago. Would you describe what was happening at
the time?

ROUZER:

“Well, of course, the Republicans had taken control of the
Senate in 1994. Many may remember the Contract with America. Bill Clinton was
president at the time. And, essentially they had a showdown over government
spending. Some look back to that as a perilous time for Republicans, but I look
at it from a very different perspective.

“That showdown ultimately resulted in a Balanced Budget
agreement, and welfare reform, both of which were tremendous advantages for
this country. Incidentally, the Clinton Administration, with the help of Mike
McIntyre, was pressured to capitulate and strike a deal that significantly
reduced the work requirements for welfare a few years ago when Nancy Pelosi was
in control of the Congress.

“That point in time was crucial to setting the stage for a
balanced budget amendment, and for welfare reform. It showed Bill Clinton that
he had a potent adversary to deal withRepublicanconservatives.And another thing is, the American
people know it takes two to tango, and when you force an issue like this, as
Senator Cruz is doing with Obamacare, and Mike Lee and Rubio and others who are
standing with him, it really displays to the American public all the faults and
pitfalls inherent in Obamacare, and shows who is on what side.

“One thing I like about those who are willing now to stand
up and stand firm against President Obama and the overreach and the Socialist
agenda is because if you don’t, they’re just going to keep on rolling, and we
can’t afford that.

“I look at it this way – a temporary government shutdown has
no lasting consequence to the country, and willdo no permanent damage whatsoever. On the other hand,mplementation of Obamacare will
cause permanent damage to this country. And when you look at it in that light,
the stakes are as high as they’ve ever been. We have to kill this thing and we
have to defund it.

“We cannot let this law take root, because, once it does, we will be
moving down the path to Socialism in a major way, and it’s going to destroy
this country. We are being hoodwinked by Mr. Obama, who is obviously intent on
attacking the American economy, our freedoms, and our way of life.”

VS: David Rouzer is plowing new ground with his bold
offensive, and it is expected that his courageous statements on a government
shutdown, Obamacare, and other critical issues, will embolden the American
people to more rigorously contest the president’s initiatives,which are totally out of step with the vast majority of our U.S.citizens.

Background

When the previous fiscal year ended on September 30, 1995, the President and the Republican-controlled Congress had not passed a budget. A majority of Congress members and the House Speaker, Newt Gingrich,
had promised to slow the rate of government spending; however, this
conflicted with the President's objectives for education, the
environment, Medicare, and public health.[1]
According to Clinton's autobiography, their differences resulted from
differing estimates of economic growth, medical inflation, and
anticipated revenues.[2]
When Clinton refused to cut the budget in the way Republicans wanted, Gingrich threatened to refuse to raise the debt limit, which would have caused the United States Treasury to suspend funding other portions of the government to avoid putting the country in default.[2]
Clinton said Republican amendments would strip the U.S. Treasury
of its ability to dip into federal trust funds to avoid a borrowing
crisis. Republican amendments would have limited appeals by death-row
inmates, made it harder to issue health, safety and environmental
regulations, and would have committed the President to a seven-year
balanced budget. Clinton vetoed a second bill allowing the government to
keep operating beyond the time when most spending authority expires. A
GOP amendment opposed by Clinton would not only have increased Medicare Part B
premiums, but it would also cancel a scheduled reduction. The
Republicans held out for an increase in Medicare part B premiums in
January 1996 to $53.50 a month. Clinton favored the then current law,
which was to let the premium that seniors pay drop to $42.50.[3]
Since a budget for the new fiscal year was not approved, on October 1 the entire federal government operated on a continuing resolution
authorizing interim funding for departments until new budgets were
approved. The continuing resolution was set to expire on November 13 at
midnight, at which time non-essential government services were required
to cease operations in order to prevent expending funds that had not yet
been appropriated. Congress passed a continuing resolution for funding
and a bill to limit debt, which Clinton vetoed[1][4] as he denounced them as "backdoor efforts" to cut the budget in a partisan manner.[2]
On November 13, Republican and Democratic leaders, including Vice President Al Gore, Dick Armey, and Bob Dole, met to try to resolve the budget and were unable to reach an agreement.[2][5]

Event

On November 14, major portions of the federal government suspended operations.[4]
The Clinton administration later released figures detailing the costs
of the shutdown, which included payments of approximately $400 million
to furloughed federal employees who did not report to work.[6]
The first budget shutdown concluded with Congress enacting a
temporary spending bill, but the underlying disagreement between
Gingrich and Clinton was not resolved, leading to the second shutdown.
A 2010 Congressional Research Service report summarized other details
of the 1995-1996 government shutdowns, indicating the shutdown impacted
all sectors of the economy. Health and welfare services for military
veterans were curtailed; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
stopped disease surveillance; new clinical research patients were not
accepted at the National Institutes of Health; and toxic waste clean-up
work at 609 sites was halted. Other impacts included: the closure of 368
National Park sites resulted in the loss of some seven million
visitors; 200,000 applications for passports and 20,000 to 30,000
applications for visas by foreigners went unprocessed each day; U.S.
tourism and airline industries incurred millions of dollars in losses;
more than 20% of federal contracts, representing $3.7 billion in
spending, were affected adversely.[7]

Result

Clinton's approval rating fell significantly during the shutdown.
According to media commentators, this indicated that the general public
blamed the President for the government shutdown.[8] However, once it had ended his approval ratings rose to their highest since his election.
During the crisis, Gingrich made a complaint at a press breakfast that, during a flight to and from Yitzhak Rabin's
funeral in Israel, Clinton had not taken the opportunity to talk about
the budget and Gingrich had been directed to leave the plane via the
rear door. The perception arose that the Republican stance on the budget
was partly due to this "snub" by Clinton,[9] and media coverage reflected this perception, including an editorial cartoon which depicted Gingrich as an infant throwing a temper tantrum.[10] Opposing politicians used this opportunity to attack Gingrich's motives for the budget standoff.[11][12] Later, the polls suggested that the event damaged Gingrich politically[13] and he referred to his comments as the "single most avoidable mistake" as Speaker.[14]
The shutdown also influenced the 1996 Presidential election. Bob Dole, the Senate Majority Leader, was running for President in 1996. Because of his need to campaign, Dole wanted to solve the budget crisis
in January 1996 despite the willingness of other Republicans to
continue the shutdown unless their demands were met. In particular, as
Gingrich and Dole had been seen as potential rivals for the 1996
Presidential nomination, they had a tense working relationship.[15][16] The shutdown has also been cited as having a role in Clinton's successful re-election in 1996.[16]
According to Gingrich, positive impacts of the government shutdown
included the balanced-budget deal in 1997 and the first four consecutive
balanced budgets since the 1920s. In addition, Gingrich stated that the
first re-election of a Republican majority since 1928 was due in part
to the Republican Party's hard line on the budget.[17][18]
The Republican Party had a net loss of eight seats in the House in the
1996 elections but retained a 228-207 seat majority. In the Senate,
Republicans gained two seats.

On the same day that a frontpage story in the Star-News announces that lack of hurricanes baffles forecasters, a biggie heads toward U.S. Atlantic seacoast -- possibly NC.

Sunny versus stormy weather on the East coast starting this weekend is
contingent upon the development and track of a future system over the
western Atlantic Ocean.

Current indications are that a storm will spin up just off the Atlantic
coast Sunday and Monday. One scenario swings that storm westward with
heavy rain, gusty winds and rough seas.

Other scenarios parallel the storm along the mid-Atlantic and New
England coasts, take the storm out to sea or bring the storm northward,
brushing New England and into Atlantic Canada.

Even if the storm remains out to sea, large swells could be generated,
especially north and west of the center from off the Outer Banks to
Georges Bank.

Cruise, shipping and offshore fishing interests should monitor the
progress of this storm, even if the weather for land lubbers remains
clear.

There is the potential for building seas from North Carolina to New
England later this weekend into early next week. This could produce not
only rough surf and strong rip currents, but also beach erosion in some
communities.

Forecasts from eastern North Carolina to the I-95 Northeast and Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland Sunday into next week are contingent on the
track and strength of the storm expected to form offshore.

How strong the storm becomes and the track it takes will determine sunny
versus stormy conditions at Cape Hatteras, N.C., Atlantic City, N.J.,
New York City, Boston, Portland, Maine, Halifax, Nova Scotia, and St.
John's, Newfoundland.

Two features may come together off the East coast this weekend: a storm
in the upper atmosphere and a weak tropical system currently drifting
across Florida with heavy rain.

Such a storm will have access to plenty of tropical moisture, while high
pressure to the north and west gives extra velocity to winds well away
from the storm center.

Because the system is likely to have both tropical and non-tropical
characteristics, it may be considered to be a hybrid (sub-tropical)
storm, rather than a pure nor'easter or tropical storm/hurricane.

According to Hurricane Expert Dan Kottlowski, "The possibilities range
from the storm becoming very strong and backing toward the Northeast
coast to escaping harmlessly out to sea."

The constituents put Senator Burr on notice that
they have been closely watching his votes and plan to continue holding
him accountable for not upholding the conservative principles he ran on.

Some recent votes they cited that were contrary to conservative
principles and many in lock-step with Senator Hagan (D) , were his votes
on the Farm Bill, Internet Sales Tax bill, food safety bill, Don’t Ask
Don’t Tell, and his cloture vote on the gun legislation.

“I take Senator’s Burr’s actions personally”, stated Wilmington
resident Lois Dixon, “I personally walked neighborhoods and knocked on
doors for Mr. Burr and he has misrepresented himself to the voters who
worked hard to get him elected.”

Most troubling to those in attendance was Mr. Burr’s position on
defunding ObamaCare through the Continuing Resolution. Senator Burr has
been quoted as saying, “I think it’s the dumbest idea I ever heard.”

Ginny Quaglia is a conservative activist and public speaker. Quaglia was awarded the Brunswick Beacon 1st
amendment award in 2012 and named activist of the month by Heritage
Action in May of 2012. She resides in Ocean Isle Beach, NC.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / September 24, 2013

In a stunning change of events, Reince Preibus and
the RNC have publicly backed Texas Senator Ted Cruz in his filibuster
attempt to stop the funding of Obamacare, which is overwhelmingly opposed by the American public.

This is huge news to the Republican Party
because most Americans have demonized the RNC for not accepting and
embracing the Tea Party. Can you get any bigger than this?

Reince Priebus sent out this letter to internal employees of the RNC and here it is:

SUBJECT: I stand with Ted[Friend],In a fight between Harry Reid and Ted Cruz, I will stand with Ted Cruz any day.Today, Senator Cruz has taken the fight to defund ObamaCare to
the Senate floor. I hope you will join me in standing with him in
solidarity.As Republicans, we must remain true to our principles and fight to protect the American people from this reckless law.55% of Americans disapprove of the manner in which ObamaCare is
being implemented, yet Harry Reid and Senate Democrats continue to
defend it, even at the expense of keeping the government running.Harry Reid may think ObamaCare “has been wonderful for America.”
But the facts are on our side – ObamaCare is costing Americans higher
taxes, fewer jobs, and less access to care.Join me and stand with Ted today. Sign our pledge and tell Harry Reid to defund ObamaCare immediately!- Reince Priebus

Now this internal piece of information doesn’t give total support to
Cruz entire strategy, however it establishes a willing commitment
embrace Cruz’s attempt to protect the American people from ObamaCare.
Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator John Cornyn have already stated that
they were going to support the funding of ObamaCare so it seems the GOP
could be fighting within itself on this one.

Dgraphics2009 (2467 Posts)My
name is Wayne Dupree or as most of you know me by, Newsninja2012. I am
and have been committed to exposing the Democrats in a way that has been
frowned upon by some conservatives and cheered by many more. I feel
it’s our responsibility as conservatives to fight back against the
liberal hate machine and meet them head on with like-minded strength and
dedication.

The New York Timesobserved
Sunday the Obama administration’s assertion that health insurance will
cost less under Obamacare has a “catch”: insurers will severely limit
the choices of physicians and hospitals available to American consumers
who use the new exchanges.

Though President Obama now famously said,
when campaigning for his signature health reform legislation: “If you
like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” according to the NYT, that is not likely to happen if Americans want the lowest insurance rates possible:

From California to Illinois to New Hampshire, and in many states in
between, insurers are driving down premiums by restricting the number of
providers who will treat patients in their new health plans.

When the Obamacare exchanges open on October 1, says the NYT,
most of those shopping for health insurance will be low- to
moderate-income Americans. To control costs, insurers are offering much
smaller networks of health providers who will generally be paid less
than what private insurance companies would reimburse them.
The situation could follow along the same lines as current Medicaid plans that are shedding health providers due to extremely low fees.
As the NYT acknowledges, “Decades of experience with
Medicaid, the program for low-income people, show that having an
insurance card does not guarantee access to specialist or other
providers.”
For example, Cigna will participate in the exchanges in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas.
“The networks will be narrower than the networks typically offered to large groups of employees in the commercial market,” said Cigna spokesman Joseph Mondy.
The NYTquotes
a recent study from the Health Research Institute of
PricewaterhouseCoopers, which finds that when insurers avoid major
medical centers when selecting providers it “enables health plans to
offer lower premiums.”
However, “the use of narrow networks may also lead to higher
out-of-pocket expenses, especially if a patient has a complex medical
problem that’s being treated at a hospital that has been excluded from
their health plan,” the study says.
Further, when health insurers exclude a hospital from its exchange
network, the physician groups that are owned by the hospital are often
also excluded.
When the issue of “pre-existing conditions” is considered—one of Obama’s top-level campaign features of Obamacare—the NYT
admits that while “insurers will be forbidden to discriminate against
people with pre-existing conditions, they could subtly discourage the
enrollment of sicker patients by limiting the size of their provider
networks.”
“If a health plan has a narrow network that excludes many doctors,
that may shoo away patients with expensive pre-existing conditions who
have established relationships with doctors,” said
Mark E. Rust, the chairman of the national health care practice at
Barnes & Thornburg, a law firm. “Some insurers do not want those
patients who, for medical reasons, require a broad network of
providers.”

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Often perpetrated by young and middle-aged men, many of whom
have been diagnosed with or are suspected to have some sort of mental
health issue, mass shooters have indiscriminately killed approximately
214 innocent people in America since 2007.

The massacre
in the Washington Navy Yard on Monday that resulted in the death of 13
people, including shooter Aaron Alexis, was another tragic incident in a
long list of similar attacks. It has been called the deadliest mass shooting in the U.S. since the tragic incident Sandy Hook Elementary School last December.

And yet, despite recent high-profile cases of mass, indiscriminate
murder at gunpoint, instances of gun violence have actually shown a
dramatic decline. While horrific, violent mass shootings have been
covered extensively by the media, broader instances of gun violence have
gone down by a whopping 49% since a peak in 1993.
This is only part of the picture. In the context of the decline in
gun violence, the hysteria-inducing, horrifying type that occurred on
Monday appears to be on the rise. The definition of the term "mass
shooting" has been contested as
some use the term "rampage" or "spree" killing, while others exclude
family-related incidents. A mass shooting is when a shooter has
indiscriminately fired on individuals in an isolated building or public
area. These have become all too common. Of the 12 deadliest mass
shootings in U.S. history, seven have taken place since 2007, according to counts made by the Washington Post. At this rate, this decade is becoming one of the deadliest in history.

A series of infographics published in the Boston Globe illustrates
just how widespread mass shootings have become in the country in recent
years. Often perpetrated by young and middle-aged men, many of whom
have been diagnosed with or are suspected to have some sort of mental
health issue, mass shooters have indiscriminately killed approximately
214 innocent people in America since 2007.

Locations of Mass Shootings in the U.S. since 1998
(viaBoston Globe)
(viaBoston Globe)
Mass shootings are nothing new in America. In 1949, more than 50 years ago, shooter Howard Unruh indiscriminately killed 13 people (including three children) in the streets of Camden, N.J. in an incident known as the "Walk of Death."
Mass shootings are also not unique to the United States.
Horrific, bloody killings like these have tainted modern global history.
A Norwegian killer topped the list when he posed as a police man and massacred
more than 80 people at a youth camp in July 2011, which is the biggest
mass shooting episode in modern history to date. When the U.S. mourned
the loss of 13 innocent victims in the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting,
mass shootings also occurred at a German school and in the British countryside.
Adding Monday's horrific episode at Washington D.C.'s Navy Yard to
the list indicates that these instances have been particularly bloody,
and frequent, in America since 2007.
(viaMother Jones)
The hope is that recent mass shootings are isolated, tragic acts that
do not portent broader trends in America. A particularly bloody few
years resulting from indiscriminate gun attacks may not necessarily
indicate an overall rise in such incidences. In fact, a sharp decline
occurred since the bloody attack in Columbine High School that killed 12.

But the recent figures are not good. 2012 was a particularly
devastating year, marked by shootings sprees in Newtown, Conn., Aurora,
Colo., among others. Monday's shooting at the Navy Yard adds to a list
of tragic cases that have already killed dozens this year. 2013 is poised to be yet another chart-topping year.

Frequent, bloody episodes plaguing this decade remind us that
we need to better understand these horrific acts in order to ensure we
do not enter a new era defined by them. The nation can (and
surely will), usher in 2014 hotly debating the merits and drawbacks of
possible policy responses aimed at preventing future mass shootings.

The
gun control debate is not pretty as it often results in few feasible
policy options. The issue deserves a thoughtful, holistic response that
addresses a range of difficult questions, not only about gun policy but
also about related issues like building security and mental health.
While the issues are exceedingly difficult to address, in light of a
particularly tragic and numerous cases of mass shootings in recent
years, it is crucial to gain a better understanding of where, when, and why individuals resort to this particular type of violence.